The 2024 Legal Defense Fundraiser has ended early due to the Board's decision to settle the suit. Donations will go towards the creation of a legal defense fund. Discussion on the matter can be found at the RationalMedia Foundation noticeboard. Thank you for your generous support.

Information icon.svg Campaigning is open for the RationalWiki 2024 Board of Trustees election.

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Enablers

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Enablers | Result: Disabled[edit]

Category:Enablers (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete[edit]

  1. This is a category that seems to be slapped on a bunch of pages, and it's not very consistent. Fortunately, the category page gives us not one but two seperate definitions: "Enablers are those particularly sketchy woo promoters and other assorted scam-artists who are known to hang out with and seek influence on celebrities and politicians (i.e., those who have power, as opposed to no-account schlubs with more money than good sense) and whose very presence seems to encourage further fuckups." Okay, but this seems like a narrow definition and doesn't apply to most of the people in the category, as many are themselves powerful people like politicians, celebrities, and CEOs and more often than not are primarily known for sketchy politics rather than woo. But wait, we have another definition! "More generally, an enabler is someone who encourages negative behavior in another." Okay, but that can apply to almost everyone we have an article on? Generally, if we have an article on them they're typically promoting something sketchy, which falls into this category under this definition but is nowhere near consistently applied. We either have a category that's overbroad or weirdly narrow and confusingly named, the category is poorly defined in either case, and overall it just reads like an assorted list of people we don't like with no other coherence to it. We'd probably be doing ourselves a favor by just getting rid of this category. Plutocow (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  2. I've used it, but I have to agree that it's problematic. I think the main problem is that it's a vague concept. Bongolian (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  3. I think the way it's used is so vague and broad it's not useful. It's not a category useful for looking anything up. Better to start over if people have ideas for more well-defined categories. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, I don’t think I’ve ever used this one. I don’t get it at all, and it’s very vague. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  5. A somebody. (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  6. Not only too vague, but also subjective. I prefer categories which are reasonably objective in nature. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. Maybe change it to "instigators"? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    You could start over with a new category which is more strictly defined. I think "Instigators" may also be too subjective, very broad and likely to end up containing every person who inspired anything RW editors dislike. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Keep in mind we can have Inferno Bot remove this category from all its pages if necessary, so "but it'll take a lot of work to remove this category" isn't a valid reason to vote keep. Plutocow (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)